The Implications regarding the Effects of explicit an implicit Instruction on linguistic pragmatic Development for vietnamese EFL Students

Abstract

In recent years, a considerable scholarly literature has accumulated regarding the most effective techniques for EFL students to develop what is termed, 'pragmatic linguistic competency'. Because the concept of ‘pragmatic linguistic competency’ represents a notion that is somewhat obscurely defined as ‘the capacity to use English language appropriately in spontaneous speaking contexts', the latitude for ambivalent interpretation is more common than we believe it should be. Part of our purpose in this paper is to relieve at least some of the resultant ambiguity surrounding this definition by reconceptualising it in the context of the current pedagogic debate which differentiates two EFL approaches to pragmatic linguistic competency. Both heuristic approaches have come to feature prominently within this framework. These techniques or approaches have become known as ‘explicit’ and ‘implicit’ instructional pedagogies. We argue that the explicit pragmatic language acquisition process signifies learning environments in which the learner is introduced to a range of explicitly relevant rules. These rules are reckoned to be interpretively foundational to the form of linguistic constructions required, in the sense that these rules function as a coherent combinatory set. On the other hand, the heuristic of implicit pedagogy “makes no overt reference to rules or forms” (Doughty, 2007, p.265), but only to forms of speech that depend upon rule-governed pragmatics, whose logical structures are to be discovered as students manipulate them, more or less skillfully, during their actual participatory contributions to the conversational exchange. Our objective in this paper will be concerned to diminish the ambivalence which characterises the interpretation of pragmatic linguistic competency by providing a more comprehensive and coherent conceptual scheme for its linguistic deployment.

Key words: pragmatics, pragmatic competence, refusal, explicit, implicit

Introduction

Pragmatics is considered as the ability to use language appropriately in a given context, to understand what speakers really mean when they say something. In deed, people do not always say what they mean. For this reason, even though an EFL learner knows the meaning of a sentence, it is inadequate for him or her to determine what a speaker means in a certain language setting of utterance. A simple example is This table is dirty. Semantically, the word this table means a specific table, dirty means unclean. However, under various circumstances, the speaker might: report the hearer that the table is dirty; tell the hearer to clean up the table; convince the hearer that the table is dirty; recommend the hearer to take another table… As such, the hearer’s failure to comprehend the speaker’s intended meaning may cause misunderstandings and lead to conversation breakdowns, or what is termed ‘pragmatic failure’(Liu, 2007)

Research on pragmatic acquisition over the pastfew decades has experienced a reproduction of experimental studies concerning the effectiveness of instructional intervention in EFL and ESL classrooms in order to foster learners’ ability of pragmatic competence and avoid pragmatic failure(see Ishihara and Cohen, 2010 for comprehensive reviews; Liu, 2007). In line with these generalobjectives of the communication language acquisition, a debate has emerged a pedagogicaldifferences between the two approaches which are considered to be the two most dominant, namely ‘explicit’ and ‘implicit’. In general, the former involves all types of rules which are explained to learners, or when learners are directed to find rules by attending to forms. Conversely, the latter makes no overt reference to rules or forms(Doughty, 2005).

The aims of the present study will be first to consult the relevant literature in order to cater a coherent comprehensive account of each of these instructional interventions. Then the second objective will be to critically evaluate the currentdebate that to a large extent separate the relationship between explicit and implicit instruction, as they are represented by whatProfessor Ronald Laura has termed ‘exclusive disjunction’. The scope of this conventional debate thus limited by the logical form of a question raisedby the traditional debate, namely either approach is clearly effective teaching process for language acquisition, i.e. if one method is proved to be effective, then the other is deemed excluded. The purpose of this study will be to show that the nature of the debate itself is structured in a limitedsense and therefore does not do justice to one ofthe approaches to language learning acquisition.The aim of this study will be to spectacle the limited scope of the debate, and then make it wider and more comprehensive.

The above findings have led the researchers to argue for a greater emphasis on pragmatics in L2 classroom (Kondo, 2008; Ishihara and Cohen, 2010). Recently, there have been an increasing number of researches dealing with the effect of instruction on L2 pragmatics learning (Ishihara and Cohen, 2010). Although previous studies have shown that pragmatics is teachable, the issues of whether pragmatic instruction makes a difference; whether there are different effects for different teaching approaches still questionable.

This leads to another central issue discussed extensively in the recent literature on the teaching of L2 pragmatic knowledge is the teaching approaches used in instructions. Generally, in a fair amount of research, explicit instruction may produce more effects than implicit instruction(Soler, 2005; Schmidt, 1990; Nguoi-Lao-Dong, 2012; Hudson et al., 1992, 1995). However, as warned by Hudson (2001), due to a limited number of studies that have investigated the implicit instruction and methodological issues such as unequal treatment lengths for explicit and implicit instructions and variations in data collection methods, the above findings should be treated with caution. Therefore, in order to gain a deep understanding of the effect of implicit vs. explicit instructions on L2 pragmatics learning, further research is certainly needed (Hudson, 2001;Wannaruk, 2008).

The next part of this paper will be to provide a general view of ‘pragmatics competence’ with which we will be working on.

Pragmatic Competence

Pragmatic Competence refers to the ability to use language appropriately in different social situations. Based on Bachman (1990), pragmatic competence in the present study is defined as the knowledge that learners use to perform a speech act successfully when communicating with native speakers of the target language. It consists of the knowledge of the linguistic resources needed to realize a speech act, of socio-cultural constraints on the use of these linguistic resources, and of sequential aspects of the given speech act.

Why teach pragmatics

For the past few decades, although pragmatics has not received rapt attention it needs in one place or another, linguists and language teachers have been aware of the importance of pragmatic competence in foreign language development and instruction. Research has also revealed that pragmatic competence does not necessarily develop parallel to lexico-grammatical proficiency (Kasper, 2001;Soler, 2005). In fact, “learners often develop grammatical competence in the absence of concomitant pragmatic competence” (Bardovi-Harlig and Dornyei, 1998, p.233), which may lead to a certain degree of communicative failure on high intermediate and even advanced proficiency levels. Thus, imparting knowledge about and raising awareness of pragmatic aspects and strategies(Bardovi-Harlig and Griffin, 2005; Ghobadi and Fahim, 2009), providing opportunities for output and practice (VanPatten, 2003; Fukuya and Martinez-Flor, 2008) need to be central features of successful FL teaching.

To achieve these goals, classroom instruction is necessary in the way that makes language available to learners for observation. Indeed, even in an L2 setting, if teachers fail to create the target environment or provide students with the input they need, students may not make use of what pragmatic information they possess or know already. That may always be the case in EFL environment where there is usually insufficient access to the target language. Thus, by providing authentic input through formal instruction, teachers can engage learners into the learning of pragmatics.

What is more, teaching pragmatics deserves advocate due to the fact that learners show significant difference from native speakers in terms of language use, the execution and comprehension of certain speech acts, in conversational functions such as greetings and leave takings. As non-native speakers, they do not know the similarities or differences in the target language. Research findings reveal that either they not aware of them, they fail to recognize them, they cannot distinguish them, or simply ignore them, depending on the given contexts where non-native speakers are tested. That does not mean they do not know what to do but that they do not do it because they lack experience or awareness of what is expected from them. This is a valid reason to confirm that pragmatics should be taught. Hence, instruction facilitates students to understand the rules, the pragmatic difference between their native culture and the target one, raise their awareness of what is and is not appropriate in given contexts. AsKasper (1997) put it, “without some form of instruction, many aspects of pragmatic competence do not develop sufficiently.”

Classroom instruction also provides a safe place for learners to learn and experiment. In the classroom setting, learners have an opportunity to try out new forms and patterns of communication in an accepting environment.

[...]